WASHINGTON – Federal officials would again oversee elections in 13 states under a broad expansion of the Voting Rights Act proposed by Democrats on Wednesday.

The legislation is timed to coincide with the two-year anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that ended strict supervision of state and local elections in states with a history of discrimination at the polls.

Supporters of the bill said Congress needs to act to prevent unfair barriers to voting before the 2016 presidential election.

“I think it’s a moral imperative to protect the rights of all Americans to vote,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He and Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., are lead sponsors of the legislation, called the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

But without Republican support, the measure won’t get far.

The legislation would resurrect and update the formula, thrown out by the high court, that had been used to determine which cities and states were barred from making any election-related changes -- such as requiring photo identification or moving a polling place -- without first proving the changes wouldn’t discriminate against minority voters.

That “pre-clearance” requirement was created under the 1965 law to block states, mostly in the South, from enacting laws making it harder for African-Americans to vote. The law, renewed by bipartisan votes in Congress, blocked redistricting plans and other election procedures that would have disenfranchised black voters.

But the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling declared the pre-clearance formula outdated, ending the practice. Most Republicans praised the ruling as a recognition the South should no longer be punished for past injustices.

Democrats, however, say the government still needs to keep a close eye on states with a recent history of discrimination. Under the bills by Leahy and Sewell, pre-clearance would apply to states with at least 15 local voting rights violations over the last 25 years. It also would apply to states with at least 10 local violations and one statewide violation.

Under that criteria, 13 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia -- would qualify immediately for pre-clearance.

“It is a modern-day solution,” Sewell said.

In expressing support for the bill, some Democrats invoked the recent 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and 100 members of Congress traveled to Selma, Ala., to commemorate the protest marches that served as a turning point in the fight to win voting rights for blacks.

“It’s not enough we have a kumbaya moment and it’s not enough that we have great speeches,” said Sewell, a native of Selma. “It’s really about what we’re going to do to protect the legacy that was fought on that bridge, and that is exactly what we’re doing right now.”

The bill introduced Wednesday is more expansive than previous versions. Its pre-clearance formula would cover more of the country and it would set new rules for notifying voters of election-related changes.

It also would require more voting materials in languages other than English, and would make it easier for judges to temporarily halt voting procedures being challenged in court as potentially discriminatory.

By expanding its reach, the proposal lost the support of at least one key Republican ally. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., cosponsored a narrower bill last year.

“Restoring the (Voting Rights Act) is critically important,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement. “Every American needs to know that we understand their right to vote is sacred. However, I stand by the legislation I introduced last Congress. Passing any bill on voting rights will be a Herculean task and there is no chance of succeeding if we abandon our bipartisan approach.”

Sewell called last year’s version a watered-down compromise that still didn’t get a vote, so she decided to push for a more aggressive approach -- one that would include her home state of Alabama under pre-clearance -- and negotiating from there.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., took a copy of last year’s voting rights bill to this year’s anniversary events in Selma to lobby Senate Republicans to co-sponsor it, but none did. He is a co-sponsor of the new version.

“I am saddened that a law that was historically bipartisan… has suffered and has been weakened,” Coons said. “The challenge of the (Supreme Court) decision… was whether or not we could come together and renew our bipartisan commitment to this most fundamental of rights. So far, as we’ve reached our hand out to the other party, we’ve seen that historic commitment melt away.”